There is no historical precedent for not reviewing a nominee at all for 2 years.

You dumb, lying little fuck. But I repeat myself.

Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.
His nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress.
For the intellectually challenged among us, such as yourself, that's under ten months, not 24 months (two years).
Gorsuch was nominated on January 31, 2017.
You are a moron and a liar.

Joe Biden: SCOTUS nominations should not occur in a presidential election year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eats

Ok, I will be more direct.

MeToo! We won. Eat it.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eats

"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down

You have an extremely tenuous relationship with 'facts,' you dumb, lying little fuck.

Less than ten months, not two years. At Joe Biden's suggestion, too! If it's good enough for Handsy Biden, it's got to be good enough for...someone.

Elections have consequences!

He has no relationship with fact, he's lied up and down this thread over and over. Seriously, I'm seriously starting to believe Eats may be the most full of shit poster I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with ever. Eats if you believe even half the shit that comes out of your mouth, you're truly a dishonest lying piece of shit.

She also says she doesn't know Kavanaugh and has no memory of being at a party, with or without Ford, in which Kavanaugh was at -- but she believes Ford, which is all that matters to liberals like yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eats

Mark Judge is a perpetrator so his statement isn't worth a lot.

This is a presumption of guilt. It appears the only statement you actually care about is the accuser's, since even Keyser has said she has no recollection of such an event. Here is your stance: "only unverified - if not completely unverifiable - claims which support my opinion count."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eats

Also this is ignoring all of the other accusers and Mark Judge's ex gf.

Deborah Ramirez's claim is that she was " she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away."

The article also states:

Quote:

Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)
......
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

All women must be believed, unless they don't agree with Eats' views, in which time they should not be believed.

Julie Swetnick claimed:

Quote:

she observed Kavanaugh drinking excessively at house parties and engaging "in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls." She claimed that Kavanaugh and others would get girls inebriated so they could be "gang raped" in side rooms at house parties by a "train" of numerous boys. "I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh." She added that in 1982, she was a victim of a "gang rape" at which Kavanaugh was present. But she did not say he participated in it and provided no details about where the alleged rape took place.

She went to many parties where she saw boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman? She recalls at "many" of these parties guys were running a "train," gang raping these drunken women, and she didn't say anything and kept on partying, returning to these supposed rape parties "many" times?

Why not, right?

Judge's ex-gf alleges that he told her that he and some other boys had sex with a drunk female in high school. The claim:

Quote:

Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it.

She got the impression that he believed it to be fully consensual. Of course she claims Judge was confessing to something he was ashamed of, but apparently kept the names of the other males a secret. We need the FBI on this! They can ask Mark Judge if he confessed to gang raping a drunk woman. It seems he'll say he hasn't, judging by his statements. Then she'll say he confessed to it, but does not know any of the names of those involved. Fortunately the ruling is already in from Eats: He's guilty!

Remember, you promoted the idea that when politicians - or at least those tied to the executive office - shouldn't be pursued for crimes committed while in office once they no longer hold that position. It's old, it's stale, it's in the past. Wait, a claim in which all parties involve categorically deny being in any way involved 35 or more years ago? Go get'em!

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

Eats, are you even trying any more? It's been pointed out that your claim false. No wonder you find this all so confusing.

She also says she doesn't know Kavanaugh and has no memory of being at a party, with or without Ford, in which Kavanaugh was at -- but she believes Ford, which is all that matters to liberals like yourself.

This is a presumption of guilt. It appears the only statement you actually care about is the accuser's, since even Keyser has said she has no recollection of such an event. Here is your stance: "only unverified - if not completely unverifiable - claims which support my opinion count."

Deborah Ramirez's claim is that she was " she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away."

The article also states:

All women must be believed, unless they don't agree with Eats' views, in which time they should not be believed.

Julie Swetnick claimed:

She went to many parties where she saw boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman? She recalls at "many" of these parties guys were running a "train," gang raping these drunken women, and she didn't say anything and kept on partying, returning to these supposed rape parties "many" times?

Why not, right?

Judge's ex-gf alleges that he told her that he and some other boys had sex with a drunk female in high school. The claim:

She got the impression that he believed it to be fully consensual. Of course she claims Judge was confessing to something he was ashamed of, but apparently kept the names of the other males a secret. We need the FBI on this! They can ask Mark Judge if he confessed to gang raping a drunk woman. It seems he'll say he hasn't, judging by his statements. Then she'll say he confessed to it, but does not know any of the names of those involved. Fortunately the ruling is already in from Eats: He's guilty!

Remember, you promoted the idea that when politicians - or at least those tied to the executive office - shouldn't be pursued for crimes committed while in office once they no longer hold that position. It's old, it's stale, it's in the past. Wait, a claim in which all parties involve categorically deny being in any way involved 35 or more years ago? Go get'em!

"All women must be believed, unless they don't agree with Eats' views, in which time they should not be believed."

You nailed it in one sentence, liberals aren't interested in the truth, they're interested in pushing their ideology no matter the cost.

Senator Spartacus...Departacus...Booker admitted to sexual assault from an incident in 1992. Dems? Crickets.

Keith Ellison, #2 in the DNC, is accused of multiple incidents of very, very specific and supported assault claims from recent years. Dems? Crickets.

A conservative SCOTUS nominee is accused of a 36 year old assault that the accuser's own witnesses, including a friend, deny. Dems? HANG HIM HIGH!

Dems liked lynching blacks in the 60s on the word of lying women. It seems they still like to lynch folks on the basis of lying women.

Had an interesting back and forth with my Leftist lawyer friend. She's taken a position much like Eats. The accused was guilty due simply to being accused. I mentioned that is silly, especially coming from a lawyer, and we discussed the issues with the accusation. Her response was: "You should always start by believing her or him if they claim an assault occurred! You know this!"

I asked her if Obama was in the same position as Brett and was the target of a nearly identical accusation, would she call for the same sort of negative action towards the accused. Her response was:"Obama would never do such a thing. He is too decent of a man." From there, I noted to her how short the "you should always start by believing" the accuser standard had lasted.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

"She went to many parties where she saw boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman? She recalls at "many" of these parties guys were running a "train," gang raping these drunken women, and she didn't say anything and kept on partying, returning to these supposed rape parties "many" times?"

Did you guys not go to college? I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down, and there were lots of people at them. I went to a rush event where a naked girl was picking up dollar bills with her vagina.

The pikes were operating for years like this and everyone knew it. One of my freshmen roommates was a Pike and he was banging a different very hot girl almost every week. Sometimes they would show up and knock on his door and yell for like 30 minutes while he was hiding in there. All of these allegations were well known, but it certainly didn't stop these co-eds from hanging out with the pikes. If he was Kavanaugh idk what I would do right now because I wouldn't want to fuck my life up for telling the truth.

I don't understand how anyone who went to frat parties would think that Swetnick's story sounds unbelievable.

I think there are other things that do a better job of discrediting her, but her claims aren't absurd.

"The fraternity, commonly called PIKE, now faces allegations that members poured boiling water on the bodies of pledges and caked them with flour, crab boil, vinegar, cayenne peppers and wasabi sauce. " - I know someone they were doing this to as well. It was fucked up.

"She went to many parties where she saw boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman? She recalls at "many" of these parties guys were running a "train," gang raping these drunken women, and she didn't say anything and kept on partying, returning to these supposed rape parties "many" times?"

Did you guys not go to college? I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down, and there were lots of people at them. I went to a rush event where a naked girl was picking up dollar bills with her vagina.

You went to frat parties where women were being gang raped, with dudes lining up outside the door to wait their turn raping a girl? This says a whole heck of a lot about you, none of which is good.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

Did you really not notice that she seemed schizophrenic in that video or do you just not care?

Did you really not notice that Ford has changed the central elements of her story numerous times (and hidden key elements, like WHERE and WHEN and her doctor's notes and on and on), or did you just not care?

Did you really not notice that Ford has changed the central elements of her story numerous times (and hidden key elements, like WHERE and WHEN and her doctor's notes and on and on), or did you just not care?

Are you asking me if Ford is qualified to be on the supreme court? Because the answer is no.

The discrepancies in Ford's story are minor and to be expected of an event that took place 30+ years ago.

Are you asking me if Ford is qualified to be on the supreme court? Because the answer is no.

LOL. You seem confused and your response makes no sense because you can't follow the conversation.

She doesn't know where, she doesn't know when, the number of people has changed multiple times (as has their gender, which is of course a progressive mental illness), none of the witnesses she identifies corroborate her accusation, her female friend who witnessed this attempted rape says she witnessed no such thing ever in her life, Ford threw her friend 'under the bus' at the hearing when asked about that interesting inconsistency because that's what progressives do, and in conclusion,

Quote:

That seems disqualifying.

And you're an admitted participant in rape. Who gives a SHIT what you think?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eats

"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down

Are you asking me if Ford is qualified to be on the supreme court? Because the answer is no.

The discrepancies in Ford's story are minor and to be expected of an event that took place 30+ years ago.

Kavanaugh lied under oath. That seems disqualifying.

lol minor he says. I mean she's only continually changed her story and has witnesses that pretty much call her out for lying and say it didn't happen but sure Eats of course you believe her. You're a liberal, truth isn't in you vocabulary.

She sounds like a full crazy person. She was talking about Ford using secret CIA "black money" and hanging out with Jim Jones and shit.

She also claims her biological father is secretly Robert Kennedy and the FBI is watching her....

Did you really not notice that she seemed schizophrenic in that video or do you just not care?

WTF Dude... #BelieveAllWomen. Sexist pig.

Serious Eats, can't you see you are just using the same argument you claim the Right is using with Ford to minimize this claim of sexual assault? Allegations can't be proven and/or the source isn't found to be credible to support the allegations. In this case you question the sanity of the source. In the case of Ford they question the details (or complete lack thereof and those that are there have shifted) surrounding the situation.

Also note the Judiciary committee has a process it goes through when information such as this comes into their hands. If Frankenfienstein had gone to Grassley using the proper process the FBI would have - quietly - investigated, likely with a far greater depth they will now be afforded. As if: 1) We can trust the FBI these days and 2) Whatever they had on Kav hadn't already been uncovered in the past 6 investigations. And Ford would never have had to testify.

It is almost like the Democrats wanted the Identity Politics circus or something, right before the midterms. After all it was those traitor white women which swung the day for Trump in 2016. If we can make them hate the GOP it might be enough to win in 2018 and what better way to rile them up than threaten abortion and put a rapist on trial then watch him be acquitted eventually because the dems threw up the weakest possible defense and witness. The Dems win in the short, medium, and long term.

Short term he gets confirmed maybe rallying women to vote out the threatened R- senators who voted for him.

OR midterm they remove Kav as the nominee for some reason (outrage fatigue?), the GOP looks like they capitulated or the FBI really found something and Trump really didn't vet the candidate well enough, dems win the perception battle they've kept a rapist out of the SCOTUS, and they push out a 9 member court for a full session. Worst case Kav gets appointed and he will go down in history (at least for the length of the midterms and 2020 election) as the Justice Trump put on the court even though he should have been put in jail for rape. It could the Willie Brown of 2020.

Longterm several of the 2020 hopefuls have had a few minutes in the sun; hopefully eating up some of their 15 minutes but the two worst offenders are swamp monsters so I don't think that is meant to be, even though they made asses out of themselves IMO. Getting that notoriety needed for 2020 will be key. And they've shown that white men are evil and corrupted as early as high school. Unredeemable white privilege is there earlier than expected, I mean just look at this turd burger's calendar all the way up to the times he was the head honcho running the alleged in-plain-sight gang rape organization.

It is nearly beyond dispute that the Civil Rights Movement, second-wave liberal feminism, and Gay Pride were liberal projects, both in the broad philosophical sense and in the narrower meaning that arises within contemporary politics. Nevertheless, it is common for those of us who consider ourselves liberal in either sense, or both, to be told we must disapprove of these great liberal successes. This occurs when we criticize identity politics.

This peculiar criticism follows an insistence that these civil rights movements must be a form of identity politics because they advocated very explicitly for a certain identity group. No. This is never what liberal critics of “identity politics” mean by the term. It is fully consistent with—indeed, integral to—universal liberalism to advocate for universal human rights, freedoms, and opportunities by focusing on the identity groups who lack them. This advocacy, however, is not identity politics.

This is not a mere semantic quibble. It is vital to distinguish between universal liberalism and identity politics and recognize what they share in common alongside how they differ. Both see and oppose inequality and seek to remedy it, but they do so with very different conceptions of society and use different approaches. These differences matter. Universal liberalism focuses on individuality and shared humanity and seeks to achieve a society in which every INDIVIDUAL is equally able to access every right, freedom, and opportunity that our shared societies provide. Identity politics focuses explicitly on group identity and seeks political empowerment by promoting that group as a monolithic, marginalized entity distinct from and polarized AGAINST another group depicted as a monolithic privileged entity.

Valor it was never about equality for the left, it's always been about control. Hence the extreme reliance on identity politics.Social Justice is not justice. Justice doesn't give a shit about rich or poor or one's skin color or sexual orientation. No, Social Justice in reality is code for "leftist equality" where everyone is poor relying on big daddy government like a good goy.